Young v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Apr 29, 1976 No. Civ. 2923Published

Before: Franson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that police officers must comply with the announcement and demand-for-entry requirements of Penal Code section 844 before entering an occupied inner room, even if a co-occupant has consented to the entry.

Issues

Whether the announcement and demand-for-entry requirements of Penal Code section 844 apply to the inner doors of a house.
Whether a co-occupant's consent to enter an inner room excuses police from complying with Penal Code section 844.
Whether an occupied bathroom is under the temporary exclusive dominion of the occupant, limiting a co-occupant's authority to consent to entry.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the requirements of section 844 apply to the inner doors of a house as well as to the outer doors.”

“We hold that Jones’ implied consent to a search of the inner room did not obviate the necessity of compliance with Penal Code section 844 before opening the door.”

“an occupied bathroom must be deemed to be under the temporary but exclusive dominion of the occupant.”

Opinion

FRANSON, J.

Petitioner was charged by information with receiving stolen property in violation of Penal Code section 496, and possession of a completed check with intent to defraud in violation of Penal Code section 475a. He moved to dismiss the information pursuant to Penal Code section 995 on the ground that he was held to answer without reasonable cause. The motion was denied. Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition from this court as provided by Penal Code section 999a.

Statement of Facts

On the basis of information received from the owner of the Harris Nursery in Tulare, California, police officers had probable cause to arrest petitioner and a female companion, Toni Gomez, for passing a fictitious check. The police were advised that petitioner and Toni were at cabin 7 at a trailer court located next door to the nursery. They went to the trailer court, and the manager told the officers that petitioner and Toni resided in cabin 7 with Cecil Jones. The officers went to cabin 7, and Cecil Jones opened the door and invited them in. When asked if petitioner and Toni were in the cabin, Jones pointed toward a closed inner door. The officers opened the door to a bathroom and found petitioner and Toni inside.

[886]

They were immediately arrested and taken outside to the police car. The officers then returned to the bathroom and, underneath a rug, found and seized a wallet containing petitioner’s driver’s license, stolen credit cards and fictitious checks.

Discussion

Petitioner contends that the evidence seized in the bathroom after his arrest should have been suppressed because the officers failed to comply with the announcement and demand-for-entry provisions of Penal Code section 844 before opening the bathroom door. For the reasons hereafter expressed, we agree with the contention.

Penal Code section 844 provides that in making an arrest, “. . . a peace officer, may break open the door or window of the house in which the person to be arrested is, or in which they have reasonable grounds for believing him to be, after having demanded admittance and explained the purpose for which admittance is desired.” Minimal compliance with the statute requires “. . . an effort by the officers prior to entry to communicate to persons inside that they séek to be admitted in order to discharge their duties

Young v. Superior Court

AI Brief

FRANSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief